Why are there people who are politically radical but socially conservative?

[VivaValiente]

Seriously.

[svenne]

It's not that easy to turn away from the socially conservative stuff you've been fed all your life (people with hippie parents don't count). The difference is that if you know about it (the bad stuff), you can at least try to work against it. Nobodys perfect, really.

[MarxSchmarx]

Unless by "socially conservative" you just mean men who tuck their shirts in, smoke pipes, and drink scotch, if they are socially conservative they are not politically radical.

[Franz Fanonipants]

yeah, like how so?

i mean you must be economically left to be left at all, and kind of as a result of being economically left everything must follow.

i'm a religious red, so although i believe in original sin and etc. i'm smart enough to recognize that the oppression of women and glbtq folks is a part of the foundation of capitalism so i'm critical of those parts of my religious establishment.

i think maybe its an issue of not really having a cogent materialist perspective at the heart of (the corporate) your politics.

[graymouser]

Because consciousness is not simple black & white stuff. People can break from the ruling ideology in uneven, messy ways - and break away from capitalism without fully understanding its implications socially. It takes time and education to even out this process, and the building of an understanding of the ways society is structured to benefit the ruling class.

The whole idea, which seems common on RevLeft, that if you are economically radical then all the social stuff follows is simply not historically true. During mass radicalization people break from capitalism with many of their prejudices intact, and these need to be broken, positively and politically.

[Franz Fanonipants]

yeah but isn't that basically just false consciousness, which theoretically will change

i mean i guess Castro's very real persecution of GLBTQ people is sort of an acid test on this but

[ВАЛТЕР]

Some of it has to do with the culture of the individual. Simply socially conservative cultures exist and that is hard to change in people.

Other things that influence it are family. It is difficult for some people to stop thinking the way you were taught to think growing up.

[graymouser]

yeah but isn't that basically just false consciousness, which theoretically will change

i mean i guess Castro's very real persecution of GLBTQ people is sort of an acid test on this but
Consciousness doesn't change automatically or mechanically. It's a complicated process of development which goes forward and backward and sideways - not in simplistic and straightforward directions. This was very much true for instance in the early days of the American labor movement - consider that even the Socialist Party of America had segregated locals in the South.

Treating this as a linear problem, which will take care of itself over time, is a mistake that has come back to bite radicalizations in the ass because they are incapable of uniting with the most oppressed layers of society.

[MarxSchmarx]

i think maybe its an issue of not really having a cogent materialist perspective at the heart of (the corporate) your politics.

Come again? I don't know what you mean by "the heart of (the corporate)" . Nor do I think it's a matter of materialism. To believe in justice for all need not be a materialist conviction.


The whole idea, which seems common on RevLeft, that if you are economically radical then all the social stuff follows is simply not historically true. During mass radicalization people break from capitalism with many of their prejudices intact, and these need to be broken, positively and politically.

The problem is is that currently, we are in anything but a stage of "mass radicalization". Yes it is true that when anti-capitalism is ascendent (i.e., in the months/years going from 15% popular support to 85% consistently then it is likely there would be residual prejudices. But this is not our current state of affairs!

[VivaValiente]

Treating this as a linear problem, which will take care of itself over time, is a mistake that has come back to bite radicalizations in the ass because they are incapable of uniting with the most oppressed layers of society.

Precisely what I refer to. I have plenty of "radical" friends who by no means can identify with the most oppressed layers of society.

My politically educated friends are mostly white and their social network of friends end up being white. It amazes me that they'll denounce capitalism and racism, yet won't take pains to engage themselves with and reach out to other political people from minority groups (because it's not like there aren't any!). But I do know that this is a two-way process as well. It's not just that educated radicals are incapable of uniting with others that are not from their background, but that the most oppressed communities will not in turn identify with or reach out to them..But I hear very few people voicing concerns about this.

But overall, I agree with the general idea everyone seems to understand here; that it's a process we have yet to really develop in the left community. It's just frustrating to see! And I think this is something that deserves more dialogue and not just something we should pass of as "oh it'll eventually come about".

[NewLeft]

How do you seperate the two? How can you be both?

[VivaValiente]

By not being conscious that you are. You can be theoretically a radical or revolutionary, and to some extent in practice, but when it comes to maintaining certain social constructions or norms to adjust to the same cultural patterns that you know (i.e. such as befriending comrades only of your background), it can be difficult to be as radical as you want. I've seen it. Anarchist kids here in New York stick to middle-class anarchist kids rarely troubling to go outside of that comfort zone, no matter how radical their ideas are about humanity and what life should be like.

Or you'll have men who proclaim to be just as interested in women's issues and participation but when in groups, they feel more assured listening and debating with their male comrades.

So, that's how you can be both and separate the two.

[NewSocialist]

Who are these “political radicals“/social conservatives of which you speak? Nazbols, “socialist“ phailanx, “national communists“ et cet.? :confused: They are few and far between so I wouldnt worry much.

regarding the proletariat, some reactionary sentiments will exist until generations grow up under communist social relations.

[Sputnik_1]

trying to change the base without understanding how superstructure is the direct effect of it is kinda pointless.

[Geiseric]

They just havent made the connection yet that their "social rightism" is a completely artificial thought process forced on them in order for them to turn against their fellow workers.

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

the world is an big thing so you will find different people with different be leaves so get used to it

[VivaValiente]

trying to change the base without understanding how superstructure is the direct effect of it is kinda pointless.

Yeah well, I don't really buy the whole "base/superstructure" argument.

[NewSocialist]

Yeah well, I don't really buy the whole "base/superstructure" argument.

then you arent really a communist, but instead a utopian socialist of some kind. materialism is the entire basis of Marxism.

[VivaValiente]

then you arent really a communist, but instead a utopian socialist of some kind. materialism is the entire basis of Marxism.

I never claimed to be a communist.. Period. And you don't have to buy the idea that society is split into two areas i.e. "economic activity/material relations of production" and then essentially the other side that builds upon that is "culture, politics, etc" to be a communist. To me, material relations of production and other societal institutions are intertwined. There is no "base" or "superstructure". These are essentially dissolved together and influence one another in an interdependent fashion--not working as dichotomies.

You don't have to accept Marx's theoretical notion of how society is arranged or even accept all of Marx's/Marxist ideas to be a communist. To claim that you do is just dogmatism at this point.

[CAleftist]

I don't see how somebody can truly be both.

[Fawkes]

Well, to be "politically radical" means having radical ideas/actions about the transformation of social (i.e. political) relationships. Social = political. However, that doesn't mean that there's a clear distinction between radical and conservative or revolutionary and reactionary. Consciousness and radicalization is a very uneven process. This is the reason for the existence of queer theory, feminism, various theories on race, etc. Everything doesn't just naturally fall into place.

[Ocean Seal]

Two words: cultural hedgemony